My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2020.09.15 Planning Commission
NewBrighton
>
Commissions
>
Planning
>
Planning Commission Packets
>
2020
>
2020.09.15 Planning Commission
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/18/2021 10:57:36 AM
Creation date
2/16/2021 3:21:59 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
70
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Nonconforming Use Variance Request – Valtinson Sign (388 Cleveland Avenue) <br />Planning Commission Report; 9-15-20 <br /> <br /> <br />Page 8 <br />(cont.) the request would seem to be in harmony with the intent of code. Given that the <br />applicant will be eliminating a 40 square foot wall sign in favor of a conforming <br />35 square foot ground sign oriented horizontally, this would appear to be the <br />minimum height variance that could be expected given this set of facts. Criteria <br />met. <br />2) Is the HEIGHT variance consistent with the Comprehensive Plan? <br />Staff Analysis: The comp plan sets broad policy goals for the City which are not <br />directly related to signs. However, provided Council finds a variance request for <br />height is justified based on the other review criteria, the sign would be considered <br />to be consistent with the City’s goals for proper development, and therefor <br />consistent with the plan. Criteria conditionally met. <br />3) Has the applicant established that practical difficulties exist on the site? <br />a. Does the applicant propose to use the property in a reasonable manner <br />not permitted by the zoning ordinance? <br />Staff Analysis: Wanting to elevate an existing legal nonconforming sign <br />above a new sound wall is a reasonable request. Absent a variance to height, <br />the existing legal nonconforming sign could be seen by no one. Criteria met. <br />b. Is the plight of the landowner due to circumstances unique to this <br />property that were not created by the landowner? <br />Staff Analysis: The landowner is not responsible for the new soundwall being <br />erected adjacent to the highway which is a unique impact uncommon to other <br />B-1 properties. Criteria met. <br />c. Will the HEIGHT variance, if granted, alter the essential character of <br />the locality? <br />Staff Analysis: No. A sign is currently present on the property facing the <br />highway. Provided the proposed electronic display meets all code standards <br />is not used as a billboard, and includes shields to ensure light will not project <br />to the east and nearby residential properties, character will not change. <br />Criteria conditionally met. <br />4) Is the HEIGHT variance being sought solely to improve the value of the <br />property? <br />Staff Analysis: No. The variance is being sought to retain current signage. <br />Criteria met.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.